- From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 11:56:52 -0400
- To: ZIG <www-zig@w3.org>
I'm joining this discussion late, as I was away all last week...... Sebastian Hammer wrote: > ..... I feel that concatenation is too heavyweight > and clumsy a mechanism for the job. > > I think my preferred mechanism would be an extension to the search PDU, > negotiated by an option bit. Runner-up would be an AdditionalSearchInfo, .... I'm disturbed by the suggestion to use anything other than encapsulation. It calls into question the entire ZIG/Maintenance Agency relationship and process. Significant effort went into the encapsulation specification. Nevertheless, if it's too heavyweight and clumsy then let's get rid of it, rather than continue to ignore it. All of the clarifications, amendments, etc, are being rolled into a consolidated draft-for-ballot (that will be ready for review before the ZIG meeting, and will be on the agenda for discussion at the meeting) of a proposed new maintenance-revision of Z39.50. The Encapsulation amendment will be part of this revision. Those of you who do not see encapsulation as appropriate for sort-lookahead should be either be prepared to explain why encapsulation should remain part of the revision if it cannot be used with sort, or should be prepared to argue that Encapsulation should be removed. Now, assuming that encapsulation is potentially useful, it's important to remember that it was aimed directly at the kind of functionality were discussing. More specifically, the aim of encapsulation is optimization and there are three types listed in the spec (see http://lcweb.loc.gov/z3950/agency/amend/encapsulation.html) one of which is "lookahead" characterized by a "Sort encapsulated within a Search, allowing the server to optimize the search by knowing, a priori, the desired sort order". Here is a suggestion: we could come up with an implementor agreement that described how to use encapsulation explicitly for this purpose. It's just a matter of sticking a sort pdu into the otherInfo parameter of a search. The overhead of using encapsulation is negligible. We could even define an option bit for this (thus you could negotiate the use of encapsulation exclusively for sort-lookahead). And we could possibly approve this at the October meeting and get it into the revision. Is this a good idea? -- Ray Denenberg Library of Congress rden@loc.gov 202-707-5795
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2001 11:55:42 UTC